Defending Cyber Crime Sex Charges In Harrisonburg Virginia

If you have been charged with a Harrisonburg, Virginia computer sex crime that is facilitated by the use of the internet in Harrisonburg, Virginia then you have been the targeted for prosecution by a special internet sex crimes task force. Defending clients accused of an internet sex crime in Harrisonburg Virginia requires the skills of a lawyer who is both an aggressive criminal defense lawyer and is extremely knowledgeable about computers and the internet. Our Harrisonburg, Virginia attorneys are skilled at both. The state governments and federal government have special task forces whose only job is to investigate computer sex crimes.

The Harrisonburg, Virginia attorneys of SRIS, P.C. are uniquely situated to defend clients accused of an internet sex crime. The Harrisonburg, Virginia attorneys at SRIS, P.C. are extremely knowledgeable about computers and they also have an entire internal IT department available to answer their queries regarding computers and the internet. Most people do not realize that Harrisonburg, Virginia are starting to prosecute people accused of a sex crime with an attitude of no mercy.

In fact, even the local counties and cities in Harrisonburg, Virginia are starting up internet sex crimes task forces. Due to the worldwide presence of the web, a person who is accused of breaking a law regarding an internet sex crime can be prosecuted in an entirely different part of the state or even another state or country.

Each state has different laws regarding internet sex crimes. Additionally, the federal government also prosecutes internet sex crimes. Most jurisdictions in Harrisonburg, Virginia are now taking the position that if a person accused of an internet sex crime does not plead guilty to the charges as presented, then they will simply turn the case over to the Feds (federal government) for prosecution. The state governments are leveling this threat because they are aware that most attorneys are not willing to take on the federal government if it decides to prosecute a case. If you have been charged with a sex crime in federal court, you can count on our attorneys to defend you in federal court. We have the experience to defend you against any type of computer sex crime in federal court.

The Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. has represented many clients charged with the following types of sex crimes in Harrisonburg, Virginia:

Internet Child pornography

Stalking charges facilitated through the internet

Solicitation of a minor via chat room

Entrapment by Police Officers posing as juveniles on line

If you believe you have been targeted for prosecution for an internet sex crime in Harrisonburg Virginia, contact us immediately. Do not talk to law enforcement without the protection and guidance of a skilled attorney who is knowledgeable about internet sex crime prosecution.

INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (KIDDIE PORN, CHILD PORN) DEFENSE

Child Pornography is a violation of federal and state laws. Production of child pornography, receipt of child pornography, possession of child pornography, distribution or sale of child pornography are computer sex crimes that are prosecuted aggressively. In the past, child pornography was not a highly prosecuted crime. However, due to the increased use of computer technology and the internet, it has become increasingly easier to possess, receive, produce or distribute child pornography. Any actual use of a child in pornographic material is a crime. Both the federal government and the state governments are aggressively prosecuting those who are charged with child pornography. The penalties in federal court for those who are convicted of child pornography are extremely severe.

If you wish to speak with a SRIS, P.C. Harrisonburg, Virginia attorney who defends clients charged with child pornography, please call us at 888-437-7747.

Virginia Code 18.2-374.1:1 Possession Child Pornography

Possession of child pornography is a very serious charge in Virginia. It is a felony in Virginia and it will result in you having to register on the sex offender registry for the rest of your life. If you have been charged with violating Virginia Code 18.2-374.1:1, do not compromise on the quality of the Virginia attorney you hire to defend you.

The SRIS Law Group Virginia attorneys who defend clients charged with possession of child pornography in Virginia or distribution of child pornography in Virginia are very experienced at defending clients charged with violating Virginia Code Section 18.2-374.1:1.

Contact us at 888-437-7747.

Some of our Virginia lawyers have been on national newspapers & TV for defending clients charged with sex crimes such as possession of child pornography.

A. Any person who knowingly possesses any sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less than 18 years of age shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, no prosecution for possession of material prohibited by this section shall lie where the prohibited material comes into the possession of the person charged from a law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency.

B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any such material which is possessed for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial or other proper purpose by a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, attorney, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material.

C. All sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject a person less than 18 years of age shall be subject to lawful seizure and forfeiture pursuant to § 19.2-386.31.

D. Any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this section shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.

Punishment For Possession Of Child Pornography – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about the Punishment For Possession Of Child Pornography in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Punishment For Possession Of Child Pornography – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Richard v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Circuit Court of Harrisonburg (Virginia) convicted defendant on twenty-four counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1 and an punishment of twenty-four months sentence in prison was imposed. Defendant appealed.

If you are facing a criminal case in Harrisonburg, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

In order to convict a defendant of possession of child pornography, the Commonwealth is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed any sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less than 18 years. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1.

An ex post facto law has been defined as any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed. The mark of an ex post facto law is the imposition of what can fairly be designated punishment for past acts.

Punishment For Possession Of Child Pornography – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Child Pornography & Internet Laws – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Child Pornography Charge & the Internet Laws in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Child Pornography Charge & the Internet Laws – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Arthur v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Following a jury trial, the Circuit Court of Harrisonburg convicted defendant under Virginia law of one count of possession of child pornography downloaded from the internet and eighteen counts of possession of child pornography, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Defendant appealed.

If you are facing a criminal case in Harrisonburg, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress based on the alleged violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, an appellate court considers the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. The burden is on a defendant to show that the trial court committed reversible error

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that a search warrant be based upon probable cause. To support probable cause for a warrant to search a residence, an affidavit must establish, with a fair probability, a link between contraband and the residence to be searched.

Suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule, to deter police misconduct.

Child Pornography Charge & the Internet Laws – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Child Pornography Penalties – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Child Pornography Charge & the Penalties in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Child Pornography Charge & the Penalties – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Martin v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Harrisonburg Circuit Court (Virginia) entered a final judgment of conviction and imposed penalties after defendant was found guilty of possession of child pornography and using a communications system for the

solicitation of a person he knew, or had reason to believe, was a minor, for certain sexual offenses, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.3(B). Defendant appealed

If you are facing a criminal case in Harrisonburg, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Although agreements to engage in illegal conduct undoubtedly possess some element of association, the State mayban such illegal agreements without trenching on any right of association protected by the First Amendment. The fact that such an agreement necessarily takes the form of words does not confer upon it, or upon the underlying conduct, the constitutional immunities that the First Amendment extends to speech. Finally, while a solicitation to enter into an agreement arguably crosses the sometimes hazy line distinguishing conduct from pure speech, such a solicitation, even though it may have an impact in the political arena, remains in essence an invitation to engage in an illegal exchange for private profit, and may properly be prohibited.

Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. There is noauthority which extends First Amendment protection to a solicitation to commit an act lawfully prohibited by statute. Reasonable prohibitions against soliciting unlawful acts do not violate free speech rights. Because First Amendment protection does not extend to statements made in the solicitation of criminal acts, laws prohibiting solicitation of criminal acts do not reach protected speech.

Child Pornography Charge & the Penalties – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Child Pornography Prosecution – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a Child Pornography Prosecution in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Child Pornography Prosecution – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Mills v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The jury of the Circuit Court of Harrisonburg, Virginia, indicted defendant on eight counts of possession of child pornography and four counts of production of sexually explicit items involving children. Prior to trial, defendant moved the court to quash the felony indictments. The trial court overruled the motion. Defendant appealed..

If you are facing a criminal case in Harrisonburg, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

U.S. Const. amend. V provides that no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Accordingly, an accused may not be subjected to (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense..

When considering multiple punishments for a single transaction, the controlling factor is legislative intent. The legislature determines the appropriate unit of prosecution and sets the penalty for separate violations. Therefore, although multiple offenses may be the same, an accused may be subjected to legislatively ‘authorized cumulative punishments. It is judicial punishment in excess of legislative intent which offends the double jeopardy clause.

Child Pornography Prosecution – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).

For the purposes of this article, the term “motor vehicle” includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train

while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article,

while such person is under the influence of alcohol,

while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely

while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or

while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than:

(a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood,

(b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood,

(c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or

(d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood.

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 DUI

Violation of this section

A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 DUI

“motor vehicle”

For the purposes of this article, the term “motor vehicle” includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth.

DUI Defense In Harrisonburg, Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266.1

A. It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of 21 to operate any motor vehicle after illegally consuming alcohol. Any such person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.02 grams or more per 210 liters of breath but less than 0.08 by weight by volume or less than 0.08 grams per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article shall be in violation of this section.

B. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Punishment shall include (i) forfeiture of such person’s license to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year from the date of conviction and (ii) a mandatory minimum fine of $ 500 or performance of a mandatory minimum of 50 hours of community service. This suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2. The penalties and license forfeiture provisions set forth in §§ 16.1-278.9, 18.2-270 and 18.2-271 shall not apply to a violation of this section. Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be eligible to attend an Alcohol Safety Action Program under the provisions of § 18.2-271.1 and may, in the discretion of the court, be issued a restricted license during the term of license suspension.

C. Notwithstanding §§ 16.1-278.8 and 16.1-278.9, upon adjudicating a juvenile delinquent based upon a violation of this section, the juvenile and domestic relations district court shall order disposition as provided in subsection B.

It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of 21 to operate any motor vehicle after illegally consuming alcohol.

Any such person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or

More by weight by volume or 0.02 grams or

More per 210 liters of breath but less than 0.08 by weight by volume or

Less than 0.08 grams per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article shall be in violation of this section.

A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.Punishment shall include

Forfeiture of such person’s license to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year from the date of conviction and

A mandatory minimum fine of $ 500 or performance of a mandatory minimum of 50 hours of community service.

This suspension period shall be in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.

The penalties and license forfeiture provisions set forth in §§ 16.1-278.9, 18.2-270 and 18.2-271 shall not apply to a violation of this section.

Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be eligible to attend an Alcohol Safety Action Program under the provisions of § 18.2-271.1 and may, in the discretion of the court, be issued a restricted license during the term of license suspension.

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266.1 Baby DUI

Notwithstanding §§ 16.1-278.8 and 16.1-278.9, upon adjudicating a juvenile delinquent based upon a violation of this section, the juvenile and domestic relations district court shall order disposition as provided in subsection B.

Baby DUI Defense In Harrisonburg, Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.3

§ 18.2-268.3. Refusal of tests; penalties; procedures

A. It shall be unlawful for a person who is arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance to unreasonably refuse to have samples of his blood or breath or both blood and breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood as required by § 18.2-268.2 and any person who so unreasonably refuses is guilty of a violation of this section.

B. When a person is arrested for a violation of § 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1 or, subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance and such person refuses to permit blood or breath or both blood and breath samples to be taken for testing as required by § 18.2-268.2, the arresting officer shall advise the person, from a form provided by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court, that (i) a person who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway in the Commonwealth is deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood and breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood, (ii) a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, (iii) the unreasonable refusal to do so constitutes grounds for the revocation of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of the Commonwealth, (iv) the criminal penalty for unreasonable refusal within 10 years of a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated or unreasonable refusal is a Class 2 misdemeanor, and (v) the criminal penalty for unreasonable refusal within 10 years of any two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated or unreasonable refusal is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The form from which the arresting officer shall advise the person arrested shall contain a brief statement of the law requiring the taking of blood or breath samples, a statement that a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, and the penalties for refusal. The Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court shall make the form available on the Internet and the form shall be considered an official publication of the Commonwealth for the purposes of § 8.01-388.

C. The arresting officer shall, under oath before the magistrate, execute the form and certify, (i) that the defendant has refused to permit blood or breath or both blood and breath samples to be taken for testing; (ii) that the officer has read the portion of the form described in subsection B to the arrested person; (iii) that the arrested person, after having had the portion of the form described in subsection B read to him, has refused to permit such sample or samples to be taken; and (iv) how many, if any, violations of this section, § 18.2-266, or any offense described in subsection E of § 18.2-270 the arrested person has been convicted of within the last 10 years. Such sworn certification shall constitute probable cause for the magistrate to issue a warrant or summons charging the person with unreasonable refusal. The magistrate shall attach the executed and sworn advisement form to the warrant or summons. The warrant or summons for a first offense under this section shall be executed in the same manner as a criminal warrant or summons. If the person arrested has been taken to a medical facility for treatment or evaluation of his medical condition, the arresting officer may read the advisement form to the person at the medical facility, and issue, on the premises of the medical facility, a summons for a violation of this section in lieu of securing a warrant or summons from the magistrate. The magistrate or arresting officer, as the case may be, shall forward the executed advisement form and warrant or summons to the appropriate court.

D. A first violation of this section is a civil offense and subsequent violations are criminal offenses. For a first offense the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of one year. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.

If a person is found to have violated this section and within 10 years prior to the date of the refusal he was found guilty of any of the following: a violation of this section, a violation of § 18.2-266, or a violation of any offense listed in subsection E of § 18.2-270, arising out of separate occurrences or incidents, he is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor and the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of three years. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.

If a person is found guilty of a violation of this section and within 10 years prior to the date of the refusal he was found guilty of any two of the following: a violation of this section, a violation of § 18.2-266, or a violation of any offense listed in subsection E of § 18.2-270 arising out of separate occurrences or incidents, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of three years. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.

It shall be unlawful for a person who is arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance to unreasonably refuse to have samples of his blood or breath or both blood and breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood as required by § 18.2-268.2 and any person who so unreasonably refuses is

Shall be guilty of a violation of this section.

When a person is arrested for a violation of § 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1 or, subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance and such person refuses to permit blood or breath or both blood and breath samples to be taken for testing as required by § 18.2-268.2, the arresting officer shall advise the person, from a form provided by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court, that

a person who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway in the Commonwealth is deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood and breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood,

a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial,

the unreasonable refusal to do so constitutes grounds for the revocation of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of the Commonwealth,

The form from which the arresting officer shall advise the person arrested shall contain a brief statement of the law requiring the taking of blood or breath samples, a statement that a finding of unreasonable refusal to consent may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial, and the penalties for refusal. The Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court shall make the form available on the Internet and the form shall be considered an official publication of the Commonwealth for the purposes of § 8.01-388.

The criminal penalty for unreasonable refusal within 10 years Of a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated or unreasonable refusal

Class 2 misdemeanor

Of any two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated or unreasonable refusal

Class 1 misdemeanor.

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268.3

The arresting officer shall, under oath before the magistrate, execute the form and certify,

that the defendant has refused to permit blood or breath or both blood and breath samples to be taken for testing;

that the officer has read the portion of the form described in subsection B to the arrested person;

that the arrested person, after having had the portion of the form described in subsection B read to him, has refused to permit such sample or samples to be taken; and

how many, if any, violations of this section, § 18.2-266, or any offense described in subsection E of § 18.2-270 Such sworn certification shall constitute probable cause for the magistrate to issue a warrant or summons charging the person with unreasonable refusal. The magistrate shall attach the executed and sworn advisement form to the warrant or summons. The warrant or summons for a first offense under this section shall be executed in the same manner as a criminal warrant or summons. If the person arrested has been taken to a medical facility for treatment or evaluation of his medical condition, the arresting officer may read the advisement form to the person at the medical facility, and issue, on the premises of the medical facility, a summons for a violation of this section in lieu of securing a warrant or summons from the magistrate. The magistrate or arresting officer, as the case may be, shall forward the executed advisement form and warrant or summons to the appropriate court.

A first violation of this section is a civil offense and subsequent violations are criminal offenses. For a first offense the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of one year. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.

If a person is found to have violated this section and within 10 years prior to the date of the refusal he was found guilty of any of the following: a violation of this section, a violation of § 18.2-266, or a violation of any offense listed in subsection E of § 18.2-270, arising out of separate occurrences or incidents, and the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of three years. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.If a person is found guilty of a violation of this section and within 10 years prior to the date of the refusal he was found guilty of any two of the following: a violation of this section, a violation of § 18.2-266, or a violation of any offense listed in subsection E of § 18.2-270 arising out of separate occurrences or incidents, and the court shall suspend the defendant’s privilege to drive for a period of three years. This suspension period is in addition to the suspension period provided under § 46.2-391.2.

Class 2 misdemeanor

Class 1 misdemeanor

Refusal Of Blood/Breath Test (DUI) Defense In Harrisonburg, Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

DUI Laws – Harrisonburg Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a DUI charge in Harrisonburg Virginia and concerned how the DUI Laws in Harrisonburg, Virginia may affect you, contact our law firm immediately for help.

DUI Laws Defense – Harrisonburg, Virginia Lawyers

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

James v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant appealed his conviction by the Circuit Court of Harrisonburg (Virginia) of driving under the influence (DUI), second or subsequent offense, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. Following defendant’s appeal de novo to that court under Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-136, the circuit court amended to DUI second offense the warrant on which he was convicted of DUI first offense in a district court..

If you are facing a traffic case in Harrisonburg, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

For whatever else the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy may embrace, it surely protects a man who has been acquitted from having to run the gauntlet a second time.

An exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause may exist where a state is unable to proceed on the more serious charge at the outset because the additional facts necessary to sustain that charge have not occurred or have not been discovered despite the exercise of due diligence.

DUI Laws Defense – Harrisonburg, Virginia Lawyers

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.